In response to Anita regarding Islamic "hate crimes"

"Flint: You asked for comparison data. My searches revealed that there were more hate crimes enacted on Arab Americans in the three days after 911 than the entire last year. You and Ken sit there and say, "Well, it wasn't as bad as I THOUGHT it would be." Well, it IS/WAS to the Arab American community."

"Yesterday, Anita, I ate more lox than I had for the entire previous year. Of course, since I had eaten only one bite previously... an entire bagel was an enormous jump in lox consumption. C'mon, Anita, I heard far better distortions during the Y2K debate. According to the FBI, there were 150 anti-Islamic "hate crimes" between 1992 and 1998. During the same period there 7410 anti-Jewish "hate crimes" and 19,968 anti-Black "hate crimes." In 1998, there were 21 anti- Islamic "hate crimes." To exceed a year's total in three days, one would need 22 "hate crimes." WOW! Twenty-two crimes! I think a multi-agency task force in order. (chuckle) Personally, Anita, I think the African-American community would be delighted to trade places with the Islamic community... even after 9/11."

I started a new thread because: 1) the old thread was really long; and 2) the exchange reminded me of Y2K. Hey, folks, there's a ton of information on the Internet. When someone uses a phrase like "more hate crimes enacted on Arab Americans in the three days after 911 than the entire last year," it's a dead giveaway there's more to the story. The FBI and Department of Justice keep extensive records on "hate crimes" and mundane offenses like murder, kidnapping and arson. When you read a slippery comparison, take a moment and check the data.

Answers

LOL. I'd already read your reply on the other thread, Ken. You want
me to do WHAT? Dispute that you ate more lox today than in the
previous year?

I visited the site of Arab-Americans [maybe the counterpart to the
Rainbow Coalition for complaints in the Black American community] and
THEY were VERY concerned. They keep track of this stuff and some of
their E-mails from folks who think Arab-Americans should all be
killed would curl your hair. I also visited a site that I think was
called Africaonline.com. THIS site consisted of primarily Indian-
Americans who've found themselves in the crossfire of this whole
thing when they had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it. They DO wear
Turbans, though, so they've been killed by the ignorant.

I would ask you to do a bit of research, Anita, but you've already
admitted a lack of motivation.

If you are going to cut-and-paste, Anita, at least try to find a
higher quality of distortion. The "more hate crimes enacted on Arab
Americans in the three days after 911 than the entire last year" is
shoddy work, even by the Y2K standards.

Not much better is the hand-wringing about "concern." People are
concerned about flying, even though other means of travel are far
more dangerous. If you'd like, I can provide the citations. The
fact that people are concerned does not make the fear of flying
legitimate. In a similar vein, the fears of Arab-Americans are not
justified by the data. Period.

Oh, and I respectfully suggest that murder is generally an act
committed by the ignorant.

So can we kill this thread now, Ken? [I really do get offended when
people start new threads with my name in the title.] What I do with
MY free time is what I do with MY free time. Wouldn't you agree? I
neither need to research more at your command, nor provide you with
information from threads before your entry here.

Of course, you don't "need" to do anything at all. But when you
present distortions and wimp out when called on them, this says
something fairly important about you. At the very least, it says that
you start with your conclusions, craft support for them with great
care and selection, and conclude that your conclusions were correct
after all!

But you should realize that it's on such non responses that your
reputation is built and on your reputation that your subsequent
opinions get dismissed or viewed as unsupportable.

All it takes is your name in the header to offend you, Anita? I had
no idea you were so thin-skinned. I am not offended so easily, but
am quite amused. If you want to keep a flawed conclusion, keep it to
yourself or share it with only those who agree with you. I'm certain
there are liberal fora where eager heads wait ready to nod in
agreement. If you want to engage in discourse here, bring a thicker
skin, some solid data and decent logic. At the very least, admit
defeat gracefully.

Well, geeze. Being tag teamed by Ken and Flint can't be any kind of
fun. You guys both have Big Brains, okay? I'm not too insecure to
admit mine isn't as big. I enjoy your commentary, but would be
highly unlikely to engage in debate on the opposite side of
both of you at the same time. If the point of this thread is
to discourage others from expressing their opinions (even if, as you
say, the logic is flawed), I think it's an overwhelming success. I
hope your big brains don't get in the way of at least considering the
possible ramifications of what I'm trying to say.

Ah...the appeal to emotions. Why does this remind me of my mother
saying, "Don't walk away when I'm talking to you, young lady."

As far as I'm concerned, the last thread was completed for me after
I'd done a comparison data check. Flint had a good point when he
asked for that. My local news station spent a good three days
discussing Arab hate crimes. The President gave a speech wherein he
said that Arab women were afraid to go shopping. He got together
with Arabs to state that the US was NOT at war with Islam, and he
would NOT tolerate increases in hate crimes against Arab Americans.
Ashcroft did pretty much the same. So was the press and the
Administration overreacting, or were there indeed more problems after
911 than previously?

I did the check and I was done with the subject. Ken wasn't done.
The hate crimes [even after the increase] didn't compare with hate
crimes afforded other minority groups. Nobody ever said they did.

Perhaps "offense" was the wrong term to use, Ken. You, obviously,
thought you'd presented a very intelligent response to the previous
thread, even though *I* felt it contributed nothing to the thread at
hand. I think we all know that 3 x 0 = 0. You and Flint didn't see
anything in YOUR parts of the US, and YOUR local news, perhaps,
didn't mention it. The only things you saw out of the ordinary were
countless flags and a few liberals excoriated for speaking up. A
thread with a mere 48 responses isn't long, Ken. You started another
thread, IMO, because you'd gotten no response from the previous one
and wanted everyone to see your fine response so ignored. Charlie
did this all the time on Debunkers and Poole's. Some of us even
received those responses in E-mails, lest we miss the intellectual
beauty of it all.

I'm not responsible for your self-esteem, Ken. I'd appreciate my
name being kept out of your quests for attention. I'm not inclined
to respond to Ray's old chant regarding, "Got no answer? Ya know I'm
right, dontcha?", although I did find the comparison amusing.

On the Matthews thread, it took me a while to recognize that you were
being serious. When I decided you were, I dug in in some detai,
showing that your assertions has no basis at all in Cherri's posted
material. I *also* noticed that as soon as I did, so, you vanished.

And NOW, having ignored the refutation, you repeat your conclusions.
Rather than either of us refer to what I'm sure we both see as
unintended irony, why not return to the offending thread and support
your case with something more substantive than "for my money". After
all, you've been coining this same money whenever you choose, and it
has yet to buy you a clue.

Ah, yes. Here we have a reprise of Flint in his famous role of
Sherlock Holmes, citing the case of the dog that didn't bark in the
night. This is the famous 'last word' argument - whoever stops first
loses. Sorry, Flint. This is just another playground debating tactic
dressed up in a tuxedo.

The sole reason I "vanished" was because I had argued my point and
presented my evidence more than once already and had nothing
further useful to say. This may not prevent you from harrowing the
same field yet another time, but I dislike wasting my time in such
pursuits.

I am satisfied that anyone reading that thread has enough information
to make up their own minds on the relative merits of our respective
arguments. If they decide I have failed, that's when "I lose".

For the effort you spend dodging and weaseling, you could have
addressed the original case on its merits. After all, I had dropped
it for the same reason you did -- I'd presented my case, recognized
that any readers' conclusions would match their political
preferences, and let it go.

NOW, in this thread, YOU choose to exhume that old issue, only to
retreat in a clould of pious accusations when I take you up on it. If
you can't reply, why raise the subject? Who do you think you are
fooling?

I must say, Flint certainly knows the proper buttons to push to get me
to reply. It's easy. All he has to do is characterize my actions and
motives to place me in the worst poossible light. I feel strangely
compelled to defend myself. Why, I cannot imagine.

The question in that thread was whether the article posted by Cherri
constituted an attack on Bush. Flint took the position that it was. I
took the opposite side of that question. The whole article was
available to examine. We each made our arguments.

If anyone wishes to determine whether I am weaseling, dodging, or
hiding from Flint's reasoned arguments die to my inability or
unwillingness to address them, or whether my arguments actually had
"no basis", I refer them to the thread linked in my previous reply.
It's all there in American English.

If any of you judge that I am being falsely pious, clueless or any of
the other assertions, characterizations, insinuations made by Flint,
then I wish you would tell me. I don't quite trust Flint's
judgment in this matter.

"My local news station spent a good three days discussing Arab
hate crimes" And what exactly does this prove, Anita? Nothing.
All you've provided is anecdotal evidence of concern.
Concern, Anita, is a human emotion... and lousy evidence to support
an argument. The data demonstrates this concern is unfounded.

Of course, the President, the Attorney General, etc. spoke out
against "hate crimes" although the deterrent value is suspect. How
many ignorant persons bent on committing a hate crime paused upon
hearing the Attorney General? "Gosh, I won't burn that mosque
because John Ashcroft convinced me otherwise." (laughter) The real
reason for the pro-Islam rhetoric was to shore up political support
among the coalition. The administration wanted to show "friendly"
Arab nations we can tell the difference between a terrorist and
a "good Muslim." Frankly, Anita, America needs the assistance of the
moderate Arab nations to fight this conflict.

Imagine the diplomatic nightmare if CNN was running tapes of American
protestors in Des Moines firing AK-47s in the air, burning Osama bin
Laden if effigy and shouting anti-Arab slogans.

Your "check" was lazy, Anita. You found enough anecdotal evidence to
confirm your foregone conclusion. Then, you were finished. The
factual data demonstrates that anti-Islamic "hate crimes" were
miniscule before September 11. In the aftermath there have been TWO
indictments for anti-Arab "hate crimes" motivated by September 11.
Two. Throughout a nation of nearly 300 million persons, there are a
couple hundred FBI investigations of possible anti-Arab "hate crimes"
since September 11. Stop the presses.

I don't think my response particularly insightful, Anita. I'm only
considering FACTS rather than relying on my brother's friend works
with this guys who knows or "I heard on the news." I know enough,
Anita, to realize my personal impressions are not relevant when
analyzing a national public policy issue. I am smart enough to
realize what I "saw" was not nearly enough to draw any conclusions.

This was the great Y2K problem... people who built a few anecdotes
into a case for catastrophe. When I pointed out the errors, the
reaction of the Y2K doomsayers was quite similar to yours.

What was most interesting (to me) was the reactions of those who had
built cases (you'll pardon the expression) the way Anita has here,
after rollover was a few months back in the rearview mirror and there
had been no bumps in the road.

A very few admitted they had got it wrong. About half simply vanished
without a trace. The rest continue to plead the Paula Gordon defense -
- that they were right all along, and that everything they can find
wrong, real or (usually) imagined, is proof that The End Of The World
happened, and the evidence to the contrary is Yet Another Example of
a coverup or whatever.

Now, if such a stunningly unambiguous refutation of an absurd
position can't change people's minds, imagine less clear-cut issues
without deadlines. I also observe (with a level of irony that should
send Nipper into paroxysms of delight) that brighter people are no
less victims of their preferences, they simply find subtler and more
sophisticated ways of kidding themselves.

So if there's no good way to escape this, what remains is one's
willingness and ability to defend one's position and approach to that
position. The Running Away Defense, especially during the discovery
or clarification of terms phases, typically looks bad. So I can only
laugh when someone feels their entire case is so independently
airtight that refutation or at least rebuttal must be without merit
and beneath reply.

Intelligent people can legitimately disagree. The challenge is to
determine what is really being disagreed about and why.

Near as I can tell, the disagreement is about the definition of the
term "rather calm." One side says that the nation has been "rather
calm" to Arabs/Muslims compared to what could have
happened. The other side says that things are not "rather
calm" compared to the treatment of Arabs/Muslims before 9/11.

As Flint said in this thread, this is a case
of "compared to what." What's interesting, though, is that
both sides are engaging in the comparison.